ArticleTranslational cancer research2024
An ensemble learning model for predicting cancer-specific survival of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients undergoing bladder preservation therapy.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: More muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients are now eligible for bladder-preserving therapy (BPT), underscoring the need for precision medicine. This study aimed to identify prognostic predictors and construct a predictive model among MIBC patients who undergo BPT. Methods: Data relating to MIBC patients were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2016. Eleven features were included to establish multiple models. The predictive effectiveness was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve (CIC). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to explain the impact of features on the predicted targets. Results: The ROC showed that Catboost and Random Forest (RF) obtained better predictive discrimination in both 3- and 5-year models [test set area under curves (AUC) =0.80 and 0.83, respectively]. Furthermore, Catboost showed better performance in calibration plots, DCA and CIC. SHAP analysis indicated that age, M stage, tumor size, chemotherapy, T stage and gender were the most important features in the model for predicting the 3-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). In contrast, M stage, age, tumor size and gender as well as the N and T stages were the most important features for predicting the 5-year CSS. Conclusions: The Catboost model exhibits the highest predictive performance and clinical utility, potentially aiding clinicians in making optimal individualized decisions for MIBC patients with BPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.